0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
quote:Originally posted by average guyIf you stopped the universe and reversed the direction of everything I do not think we would go back in "time".
quote:Originally posted by average guySpace is 3 dimensional.There is no such thing as time, just motion.If you stopped the universe and reversed the direction of everything I do not think we would go back in "time".
quote:Originally posted by Soul SurferTime is what stops everything happening at once. Read Julian Barbour "The end of time" if you want to get really confused or maybe a bit more insight.
quote:Originally posted by XinWhat happens if we are able to reverse motion...would there be a beginning? If we could speed up motion, would there be an end? If Time really is just the measurement of motion, this would make "time travel" a pretty daunting task...because you'll need to simultaneously alter the motion of EVERY single atom in the entire Universe.
quote:Would this alteration affect memory? If we reverse motion and then move it forward, would our memories ALSO move backwards? IF so, "Time travel" would be useless, since we wouldn't KNOW or remember that we did it. And therefore could not produce any paradoxes because we'd be forced to move forward in the exact way before we moved back. There'd be no way for us to purposely change the "future" motion. And so perhaps, life is predestined and Free Will doesn't exist.
quote:Originally posted by neilepWould ' time ' have had to be created first as a precursor for the Universe to commence expanding ?
quote:Originally posted by realmswalkerwell i believe time is simply the expansion of energy across reality and the increase in chaos.At the time of the big bang all things existed in 1 point, not very much chaos then.Now however there is lots of chaos and its increasing as the universe expands (more places for things to exist in, more chaos)
quote:Originally posted by realmswalkerwell no actually.If nothing moved at all in existence, and the universe was totally static, would time exist? No of course not.Therefore for time to exist there MUST be change and motion
quote:Originally posted by JimBobPerhaps, it is jut the point of observation. All of us have experinced time slowing down - in a car crash, for example. Things happen in slow motion. You know it is coming but it takes foreveer, or so it seems, for this to happen.If I only had a little humility, I'd be perfect. ----Ted Turner
quote:SimultaneitySpecial relativity holds that events that are simultaneous in one frame of reference need not be simultaneous in another frame of reference.Simultaneity can be seen by considering the second term of the expanded Lorentz equation for t'. Here as the velocity v varies two events move forwards or backwards in time relative to each other if they are physically separated in space. This can be observed in Diagram 1; some events may be observed moving from the past to the future and back again as acceleration between reference frames occurs and time passes.Lack of simultaneity implies that, for example, the two ends of a moving rod actually are not equally old — so for example, a cast radioactive rod would be older and have lower activity at the trailing edge than the leading edge. Indeed, lack of simultaneity explains why Lorentz contraction occurs — the rod is partially tilted along the time axis as it accelerates, giving a foreshortening in the spatial dimension.According to a paper by Los Alamos scientist James Terrell, the observability of the Lorentz contraction from the single point in space is impossible by optical instruments. For example a distant spherical galaxy moving across the Milky Way with velocity 0.99c would appear as spherical object in our optical instruments. Lorentz contraction of distant galaxies cannot be observed from Earth. [ see "Invisibility of the Lorentz Contraction" in Physical Review 116 (1959) 1041 ]. Lorentz contraction is nevertheless a real physical effect. Its measurement by widely spaced instruments used simultaneously in the given frame is possible.Causality[img=left]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/2/24/Light_cone.png/180px-Light_cone.png[/img=left]In diagram 2 the interval AB is 'time-like'; i.e., there is a frame of reference in which event A and event B occur at the same location in space, separated only by occurring at different times. If A precedes B in that frame, then A precedes B in all frames. It is hypothetically possible for matter (or information) to travel from A to B, so there can be a causal relationship (with A the cause and B the effect).The interval AC in the diagram is 'space-like'; i.e., there is a frame of reference in which event A and event C occur simultaneously, separated only in space. However there are also frames in which A precedes C (as shown) and frames in which C precedes A. Barring some way of traveling faster than light, it is not possible for any matter (or information) to travel from A to C or from C to A. Thus there is no direct causal connection between A and C. However, many points in spacetime would be in the light cone of both C and A and can be causally related to either or both of these events, and similarly both C and A could have been caused by an earlier event.Since the set of points of spacetime that is in any events light cone is completely independent of reference frame, then causality is absolutely assured.